[wbronitsky]

Is your argument that the solution to violence is no violence? I believe that assertion is self evidently useless and harmful to the discussion. We would do a lot better to try and raise the tenor of the conversation by discussing interesting viewpoints, not asserting that the solution to something is to simply stop doing it

[meshr]

My answer to violence is to be smarter. It is global problem here that we still haven’t developed tools to force countries to comply with their own laws to stop violence. We need worldwide consensus here what everyone should do in this case before he hits the same problem.

[wbronitsky]

These blanket statements about “violence” are mostly devoid of meaning. What are we defining as violence in this context such that someone could be “smarter” to avoid it? Is the suggestion that someone getting assaulted should be “smarter” to solve their problem? What about protesters that are being attacked by the police? What about a country that is being invaded? I don’t understand how intelligence can fix “violence” or what “violence” even is in this context.

Moreover, asserting that we need “world wide consensus” strikes me as an incredibly naïve point. Is there anything that everyone agrees on? Are we stuck with violence until everyone agrees? Grand statements about getting along don’t seem to chip away at the problem at all. In fact, I would assert that they are fiercely counterproductive; one can say we all need to get along and until then we have no culpability.

[meshr]

What I mean is to fight back with your brain but not with your body. Someone getting assaulted should be “smarter” to not fight back physically with much bigger opponent. You should look how Edward Snowden or Julian Assange fight back.

“world wide consensus” means to create big enough entity who is ready to act when law is violated anywhere in the world so that its actions can hurt violator. Imagine the world where open-source is replaced by such entity.